On Topic / Off Topic

[Cyclofiend Jim]

The topic of this group has always been narrowly defined by design.

Over the...what...13 years (the old rbw list migrated here to google groups in March of 2007) in which I've moderated the group, I've taken down all manner of threads which were off topic and got weirdly nasty. 

Mostly they were about SUV's or bait versus fly fishing, sometimes about helmets. Innocuous topics that suddenly lurched sideways. Good people saying hurtful things for little reason other than getting caught up in the call and response of the internet. I usually manage to get the nasty threads deleted, but sometimes run out of energy and time before I can get rid of others which are kind of on the bubble. That's not the same as tacit approval.

Before the COVID situation had developed into even a quarter of what it is now, we had an exceptionally nasty thread which expanded here. Caused folks to post some very angry things and leave.

The current demonstrations and responses and actions are playing out on a scale I don't feel we can ever hope to cover in this group.In the short time following the original post, I deleted responses in the the moderation queue which had already crossed the line of civil discourse. Not to mention the growing debate simply about whether or not the post was on or off topic.

There are plenty of places online to have those conversations. 

I do understand the anger and the pain and frustration going on right now. But there are much more appropriate venues to directly apply yourself to begin to address these issues in our culture than talking (or arguing) about them here.

Thank you to those of you who contacted me directly - some of you were concerned about the growing adversarial tone of comments, others the non-RBW content of the post. Others have asked directly why the thread was deleted. I hope this gives some insight to the decision. 

I guess I come back to the idea: the topic of this group has always been narrowly defined by design at the beginning.

Stay safe and act fairly. 

- Jim / Cyclofiend / list admin

[William!]

Jim,
You deleted a post that linked to a fundraiser for BLM being organized by a member of *our* community. If you want to define that as out of bounds, you can count me out of *your* community.

William

[rob markwardt]

Agree.

[Joe Bernard]

The post is still at internet-bob (locked to replies) and 650B and Mr. Heine's blog. And as stated there's a million other places to pursue this topic, I've done a significant amount of opining in those places myself. I'm not going to do so here for the reasons Jim stated, and I don't think it's necessary to give him grief about moderating his forum. It's not Riv's forum or yours or mine, it's Jim's.

[Cyclofiend Jim]

I appreciate the honesty of your feedback. 

It may have been absolutely the wrong move. We are all decidedly imperfect. 

My decision was related more to the tone of the responses (both public and moderated) which seemed to be quickly going off-course. it seemed to be boiling up, which is happening quite a bit of late. 

- Jim

[Garth]

   I appreciate this place because we don't talk politics, religion and social issues of the day.  As stated, there are many other places to do that, and many places that decidedly do not. Would I expect to hear about the issues of the day on a website about say cooking, auto repair, living/hanging out in the wilderness and such ?  Decidedly nay. Do the site admins there welcome such diversions ? Not if they wish to stay on topic. 

  It's impossible to "talk about the pressing issues of the day because I care" .... and not get swept away in playing out the very representative roles that those issues encompass. What drives the story ? Conflict, division, taking/making sides ..... _____ vs._____ .   When does it end ?  Not by playing it out, that's for sure. It "ends" by having no ground from which to begin in the first place. 

  - Garth 

[franklyn]

I appreciate the work Jim does to moderate the forum. I haven't owned a Rivendell in 10 years but all my bikes reflect preferences I gained because of Rivendell's influence, and I still use many parts and accessories that Riv sells. 

I think drawing a line on the metric of civility, tones, and respect is very reasonable. I remember members requesting moderators to shut down a thread on helmet debate. The fact is, we can get pretty worked up on bike-exclusive issues like low/high trail; long/short chainstays, etc. Disagreement ain't bad, we just don't want to call each other names!

I appreciate Grant's newest blahg entry, as he makes plain that bicycles are inextricably linked to human history and activities, and racial and other social justice are no exceptions. In the worst pandemic we have faced for 100 years, even public health experts support protest and assembly because racial injustice to them is a "public health" issue.

Personally, I can speak to how my experience with biking are tied to the issue of race. I love doing long-distance rides; brevets, mixed-terrain ramblings, short and long tours, S24Os. Even in places that are considered "diverse" and "progressive" I have experienced hostility that are thrown my way because I am not white, anywhere from race-tinted jokes and names, fake accents, sometimes those comes in combination with things thrown my way; one time a passenger of a truck swung a plastic soda bottle at me as they drove by, while saying some racial epithets. Riding our bikes to beautiful and remote places is liberating, but this type of activities also makes us vulnerable. On a tour, bike trip, or long rides, in addition to all the usual bike-related logistics, I always wonder, and sometimes look into, whether a locale is 1) friendly to cyclists; 2) does it have a reputation of treating POCs poorly. Obviously, we are still sheltering in place and I don't have plans to do any bike travel right now, but the anti-asian/anti-chinese sentiments and attacks that came with pandemic give me more pause on traveling to some locations. 

My point is, we talk a lot about life circumstances when it intercept cycling/bikes: commute; city infrastructure; traffic; bike-friendly services/locales; aging and health. For people of color, especially the African American community, race intercepts/cuts deeper and affects us just as much, if not more than some or all of these other categories that are OK to talk about on this list. Many of these other issues are "political" and/or controversial, too. Whether local transportation and urban planning policies (funding for bike-specific infrastructure; lowering the speed limit, etc.) appropriately address the needs of non-car modes are deeply political and can be divisive, and no one bats an eye if a lister shares the experience that residents of a particular neighborhood are especially anti-bikes (as shown by anti-bike signs or laying tacks on the road, etc.). A year or so ago, someone set up a booby trap on a popular bike path in Portland (OR) and seriously injured a cyclist. The perpetrator was arrested and later put on trial. I don't think anyone would object talking about that on this list, so why is racial injustice any different, after all, it serious endanger some people, including when they are riding bikes (or jogging, as in the case of Armaud Arbery).

We never had any problem when Grant and sometimes even other listers announce a charitable cause, why should we block Jan from announcing his? After all, even if we are allergic to "racial" stuff, (as I mentioned earlier) public health experts support the protesters congregating despite the pandemic because racial injustice is a serious "public health" issue. How is soliciting contribution for a public health cause any different than other cause that other listers solicit for?

I am not opposed to banning and removing certain threads, and I think negativity/uncivility/lack of respect is a good criterion for that, not the fact that we are talking about something related to race or other social justice issues.

with respect,

Franklyn

Berkeley, CA

[Patrick Moore]

Garth, sometimes you actually make sense. Good points.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/12e9e43f-4d06-417d-bf6d-e8053c40143c%40googlegroups.com.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

[Joe Bernard]

To reiterate because I think it's going to get lost, Jim has stated the thread was pulled because public and private comments led him to determine the discussion was going to get out of control. He didn't pull it because of the charitable organization itself.

Joe Bernard

[Philip Williamson]

Thank you for your thoughtful post, Franklyn. I agree that race is an in-bounds topic here, but name-calling is unacceptable and counter-persuasive. I’ve seen more people bend away from their reflexive answers in the last few days than ever before on the internet, and only in response to kindness while explaining a different perspective.

I’m sorry that stuff happens to you. It sounds much worse than my experience with people in cars who feel I’m a just target for being on “their” roads. I’m glad you persist in riding. I also particularly enjoy your photos of Berkeley views.


Philip
Santa Rosa, CA

[William Henderson]

What I observed was a really reasonable, civil topic highlighting BLM and an fundraising effort that Jan is making with Bicycle Quarterly. Maybe I missed something inflammatory in it, but the email is now lost (along with the link).

Like others, I want this to remain a civil community. However, I find the judgement call about what is "on topic" problematic. If this is about civility, let's focus on that and not muddy the waters with any other areas for subjectivity.

Here are some different actions that could be taken:

- Write a code of conduct for the group and post it as a sticky post. Be clear about what constitutes uncivil behavior, what kinds of topics are explicitly disallowed, and what the consequences are when someone breaks the rules.

- When it comes to deleting threads, I think it's really important to preserve the thread so that people can see how the code is being enforced. This provides accountability in both directions. The obvious exception would be for threads or messages that are hateful or abusive. I'd suggest a policy like this:

1. When someone posts something uncivil, it will be deleted.
   
2. When someone posts something about a topic that is explicitly disallowed, the thread will be locked (but not deleted) along with a reminder about the code of conduct.
   
3. When someone posts something that isn't uncivil seems like it could be taking the thread in that direction, the thread will be locked (but not deleted) along with a personal statement from the moderator about them making the call to shut it down in order to protect the community sense of safety and civility.
   

Again, this is ultimately your community Jim and you have the power & responsibility to make the call here. The rest of us have the power & responsibility to make sure that we are participating in a community that is compatible with our core values.

William

William

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/rbw-owners-bunch/vfSNhhORXbg/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/efb934c9-c17a-4467-802d-bb89f6b3a233%40googlegroups.com.

[MCT]

Thanks Jim for all the work you do for the group.

This is a simple one. Jim is the moderator and decides the rules and what is acceptable to post. If don’t like the rules, then start your own group/forum where you can make the rules you want.


Matt in OKC

[Steve Palincsar]

On 6/3/20 3:10 PM, William Henderson wrote:

What I observed was a really reasonable, civil topic highlighting BLM and an fundraising effort that Jan is making with Bicycle Quarterly. Maybe I missed something inflammatory in it, but the email is now lost (along with the link).

The initial email was informative rather than inflammatory.  It also asked that there be no follow-on discussion on the list, asking that if anyone wanted to discuss the subject to do so on the Rene Herse blog.

Like others, I want this to remain a civil community. However, I find the judgement call about what is "on topic" problematic. If this is about civility, let's focus on that and not muddy the waters with any other areas for subjectivity.

Here are some different actions that could be taken:

- Write a code of conduct for the group and post it as a sticky post. Be clear about what constitutes uncivil behavior, what kinds of topics are explicitly disallowed, and what the consequences are when someone breaks the rules.

- When it comes to deleting threads, I think it's really important to preserve the thread so that people can see how the code is being enforced. This provides accountability in both directions. The obvious exception would be for threads or messages that are hateful or abusive. I'd suggest a policy like this:

1. When someone posts something uncivil, it will be deleted.
   
2. When someone posts something about a topic that is explicitly disallowed, the thread will be locked (but not deleted) along with a reminder about the code of conduct.
   
3. When someone posts something that isn't uncivil seems like it could be taking the thread in that direction, the thread will be locked (but not deleted) along with a personal statement from the moderator about them making the call to shut it down in order to protect the community sense of safety and civility.
   

This would work nicely if this was a forum.  But there is a technical problem.  It is not a forum, it is a google group.  While a google group may look like a forum to those who access it via a web browser, it also acts like an email discussion group / listserv, and a significant number of participants get list postings by email.  Google group software can't delete already delivered emails and doesn't provide a way to lock a topic so that email replies to already received emails in the discussion topic aren't delivered.  

From a moderator / list owner's perspective, this makes the moderation job more complicated. 

Steve Palincsar
Alexandria, Virginia 
USA

[Joe Bernard]

"What I observed was a really reasonable, civil topic highlighting BLM and an fundraising effort that Jan is making with Bicycle Quarterly. Maybe I missed something inflammatory in it, but the email is now lost."

It shouldn't be necessary to keep repeating this, it's in the original post on this thread. Jim was getting a lot of private feedback we have not seen. His decision was based on information we are not privy to.

[Jonathan D.]

Jim - thank you for all you do for this forum to keep it going. I do really value it and the community. I also see how some threads digress and lose civility and I don’t envy your role to manage that.

I don’t think Jan’s post was off topic or inappropriate though and I think the Blahg is evidence of this. Rivendell’s values and mission align with the BLM movement. There are years of systemic racism and sexism in bike culture and history that Grant highlighted this week and many times before, and I hope we can also continue to challenge this history wherever and whenever we can. I do think there is a level of white privilege to expect to come to this forum and not have to hear about what our neighbors face everyday just for being black or brown, or gay, or trans, etc and be confronted with what is happening in this world. I do think everyone should be expected to be civil to each other, be respectful and at times let the thread stop.

Again thank you for all you do.